Suggested Citation:"16 Engaging the Public in Biodiversity Issues--MICHAEL J. NOVACEK." National Academy of Sciences. 2008. In the Light of Evolution: Volume II: Biodiversity and Extinction. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/12501.

Suggested Citation:"16 Engaging the Public in Biodiversity Issues--MICHAEL J. NOVACEK." National Academy of Sciences. 2008. In the Light of Evolution: Volume II: Biodiversity and Extinction. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/12501.

Suggested Citation:"16 Engaging the Public in Biodiversity Issues--MICHAEL J. NOVACEK." National Academy of Sciences. 2008. In the Light of Evolution: Volume II: Biodiversity and Extinction. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/12501.

Suggested Citation:"16 Engaging the Public in Biodiversity Issues--MICHAEL J. NOVACEK." National Academy of Sciences. 2008. In the Light of Evolution: Volume II: Biodiversity and Extinction. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/12501.

Suggested Citation:"16 Engaging the Public in Biodiversity Issues--MICHAEL J. NOVACEK." National Academy of Sciences. 2008. In the Light of Evolution: Volume II: Biodiversity and Extinction. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/12501.

Suggested Citation:"16 Engaging the Public in Biodiversity Issues--MICHAEL J. NOVACEK." National Academy of Sciences. 2008. In the Light of Evolution: Volume II: Biodiversity and Extinction. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/12501.

Suggested Citation:"16 Engaging the Public in Biodiversity Issues--MICHAEL J. NOVACEK." National Academy of Sciences. 2008. In the Light of Evolution: Volume II: Biodiversity and Extinction. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/12501.

Suggested Citation:"16 Engaging the Public in Biodiversity Issues--MICHAEL J. NOVACEK." National Academy of Sciences. 2008. In the Light of Evolution: Volume II: Biodiversity and Extinction. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/12501.

Suggested Citation:"16 Engaging the Public in Biodiversity Issues--MICHAEL J. NOVACEK." National Academy of Sciences. 2008. In the Light of Evolution: Volume II: Biodiversity and Extinction. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/12501.

Suggested Citation:"16 Engaging the Public in Biodiversity Issues--MICHAEL J. NOVACEK." National Academy of Sciences. 2008. In the Light of Evolution: Volume II: Biodiversity and Extinction. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/12501.

Suggested Citation:"16 Engaging the Public in Biodiversity Issues--MICHAEL J. NOVACEK." National Academy of Sciences. 2008. In the Light of Evolution: Volume II: Biodiversity and Extinction. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/12501.

Suggested Citation:"16 Engaging the Public in Biodiversity Issues--MICHAEL J. NOVACEK." National Academy of Sciences. 2008. In the Light of Evolution: Volume II: Biodiversity and Extinction. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/12501.

Suggested Citation:"16 Engaging the Public in Biodiversity Issues--MICHAEL J. NOVACEK." National Academy of Sciences. 2008. In the Light of Evolution: Volume II: Biodiversity and Extinction. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/12501.

Suggested Citation:"16 Engaging the Public in Biodiversity Issues--MICHAEL J. NOVACEK." National Academy of Sciences. 2008. In the Light of Evolution: Volume II: Biodiversity and Extinction. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/12501.

Suggested Citation:"16 Engaging the Public in Biodiversity Issues--MICHAEL J. NOVACEK." National Academy of Sciences. 2008. In the Light of Evolution: Volume II: Biodiversity and Extinction. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/12501.

Suggested Citation:"16 Engaging the Public in Biodiversity Issues--MICHAEL J. NOVACEK." National Academy of Sciences. 2008. In the Light of Evolution: Volume II: Biodiversity and Extinction. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/12501.

Suggested Citation:"16 Engaging the Public in Biodiversity Issues--MICHAEL J. NOVACEK." National Academy of Sciences. 2008. In the Light of Evolution: Volume II: Biodiversity and Extinction. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/12501.

Suggested Citation:"16 Engaging the Public in Biodiversity Issues--MICHAEL J. NOVACEK." National Academy of Sciences. 2008. In the Light of Evolution: Volume II: Biodiversity and Extinction. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/12501.

Suggested Citation:"16 Engaging the Public in Biodiversity Issues--MICHAEL J. NOVACEK." National Academy of Sciences. 2008. In the Light of Evolution: Volume II: Biodiversity and Extinction. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/12501.

Suggested Citation:"16 Engaging the Public in Biodiversity Issues--MICHAEL J. NOVACEK." National Academy of Sciences. 2008. In the Light of Evolution: Volume II: Biodiversity and Extinction. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/12501.

Below is the uncorrected machine-read text of this chapter, intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text of each book. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

16
Engaging the Public in
Biodiversity Issues
MICHAEL J. NOVACEK
To engage people in biodiversity and other environmental issues,
one must provide the opportunity for enhanced understanding
that empowers individuals to make choices and take action based
on sound science and reliable recommendations. To this end, we
must acknowledge some real challenges. Recent surveys show
that, despite growing public concern, environmental issues still
rank below many other problems, such as terrorism, health care,
the economy, and (in the U.S.) family values. Moreover, much of
the recent upswing in interest in the environment is due to the
marked shift in attention to global warming away from other envi-
ronmental problems such as destruction of ecosystems, water
pollution, overpopulation, and biodiversity loss. Such a change
in public focus often comes with a tendency to decouple vari-
ous environmental problems and ignore their synergistic effects.
Exacerbating this problem are arguments from the media and
other sources that discourage public interest in environmental
topics by characterizing the science behind them as overly com-
plex, immersed in debate and controversy, and detached from
human interests. Educational programming, media, exhibitions,
and other means of public outreach should build on the welcome
increase in public interest in global warming by demonstrating
the interplay of various environmental disruptions. In the case of
biodiversity, the importance of species in providing ecosystem
American Museum of Natural History, Central Park West at 79th Street, New York, NY
10024.
297

298â /â Michael J. Novacek
services, natural beauty and pleasure, and sustaining human
lives is a message that requires constant attention and recrafting
to impact diverse audiences.
T
he last decade of the 20th century was the first time a sense of
urgency about the global-scale degradation of natural habitats, and
the resultant threats to potentially millions of species, galvanized
an effort to both study and conserve what was at risk. Edward O. Wilson
(1988) was the first to publish the word ââbiodiversityââ in the 1988 proceed-
ings from a conference held in 1986 organized by W. J. Rosen, who origi-
nally coined the term. The current decimation of species, commonly called
the biodiversity crisis, was the subject of Wilsonâs landmark book entitled
The Diversity of Life, published in 1992. Subsequently, many other publica-
tions (Peters and Lovejoy, 1992; Heywood and Watson, 1995; Eldredge,
2000; Mooney and Hobbs, 2000; Novacek, 2001a, 2007; Wilson, 2002) have
addressed this problem. By the late 1990s, biodiversity became the subject
of elementary, secondary, and college courses, public journalism, televi-
sion specials, and major museum exhibits. If biodiversity was still not a
commonly recognized word, a broader public at least seemed to be getting
the message that precious natural habitats and their species were under
intense siege. In addition, scientific institutions, nongovernmental orga-
nizations (NGOs), and other groups pushed for more science and more
effective policy to improve our stewardship of biodiversity under threat.
Some governments reacted by adopting laws, regulations, and programs
that limited overharvesting of both marine (Safina et al., 2005; Stokstad,
2006) and terrestrial (Blanc et al., 2003) species, controlled selected inva-
sive species (Normile, 2004), and secured protection for selected natural
habitats (Foley et al., 2005; Revkin, 2008).
Given all this enlightenment, commitment, and effort, it is sobering
to reflect, nearly 20 years later, on the continued deterioration of the situ-
ation. Despite impassioned pleas and elaborate strategies for conserving
rain forests, the rate of loss has hardly abated. Brazil, which holds â62%
of all Amazonian rain forest, lost on average â18,100 km2/yr between 1988
and 2006 but registered a loss of 27,400 km2/yr in 2004. Brazilian defores-
tation rates decreased by 2006 to â14,000 km2/yr, but this trend could be
temporary, because falling prices of soya and the increased strength of Bra-
zilian currency and government intervention contributed to the decrease
(Malhi et al., 2008). Africa, with a significantly smaller amount of forest
cover, lost an amount of forest comparable to that for South America for
the same time period (Mygatt, 2006). Other regions of the world, notably
Southeast Asia, are recording similarly serious losses (Sterling et al., 2006;
United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization, 2006). The situation

Engaging the Public in Biodiversity Issuesâ /â 299
for many freshwater habitats in both temperate and subtropical areas is,
if anything, worse (Dudgeon et al., 2005; International Union for the Con-
servation of Nature, 2007). Marine ecosystems have likewise suffered from
devastating reductions in fisheries (Crutzen, 2002) and the degradation of
>50% for most coral reef systems (Pandolfi et al., 2005). At the same time,
there is even less investment in study and conservation of marine habitats
than in terrestrial ones (Hendriks et al., 2007).
The obvious question, then, is why has a massive, international effort
to deal with the biodiversity crisis failed to launch? Much of the current
stasis is ascribed to the antagonism of corporate interests and lack of
vision, and even resistance, of leaders and governments (Biodiversity
Project, 2002; Shellenberger and Nordhaus, 2007). Accepting these as fac-
tors does not, however, obviate the need for broader and deeper public
understanding. The ââpower of the peopleââ is well demonstrated as the
primary force behind new, more enlightened, measures by governments
and corporations. Conversely, if a lack of public understanding or concern
persists, it is highly unlikely that either governments or businesses will
change course.
So, what can we now do to improve the situation? Scientists are obvi-
ously a critical part of any effort, because they continually improve the
database for both species diversity and loss and thereby provide an ever
clearer picture of the scientific realities of the biodiversity crisis. However,
given the urgent and serious nature of biodiversity degradation, scientists
also must have a voice in a dialogue that fosters broad public interest,
commitment, and engagement. Here, I further probe the current state
of public awareness of the biodiversity crisis, describe the challenges to
achieving broad-based effective engagement on the issue, and offer further
suggestions for dealing with these challenges.
STRATEGIES FOR ENGAGEMENT
To engage people in environmental issues such as the biodiversity
crisis, one has to inspire a connection with nature. That linkage should
be built from a clear and compelling message about the importance of
biodiversity and what we risk in depleting it. However, these are only the
first stages of a strategy that leads to engagement. As various dictionaries
define the word, ââengageââ also means to develop meaningful connections
with others; to bring into association or aid; or to attract, hold, or draw
others into some agreed-upon action or service. It is clear that much of
the effort to generate interest in environmental problems stops short of
a follow-through that could be characterized as engagement. Surveys on
ââgreenââ consumerism (Hartman Report, 1996) have shown that environ-
mental awareness does not necessarily affect behavior and purchases.

300â /â Michael J. Novacek
Increased public interest in environmental issues (Biodiversity Project,
2002) by no means ensures that people will engage in ways that may
modify their behaviors, adjust their priorities, and advocate the need for
change.
The numerous impediments to achieving both public understanding
and engagement on biodiversity issues, as related in the seminal 1998
Biodiversity Project ââroadmapââ report (Biodiversity Project, 1998), include
science illiteracy, the related lack of public familiarity with ecological and
evolutionary processes that inform conservation issues, an uncertainty as
to why biodiversity conservation is good for individuals and society, a lack
or impoverishment of experiences that put people into nature, the disinter-
est or even antagonism of media and other potential partners in outreach,
mistrust of government, information overkill, and competitive choices
(even often subliminal ones), such as unsustainable consumerism.
So, then, how shall we carry on with the mission? Recommendations,
both specific and general (Biodiversity Project, 1998), include a clearer
identification of the attitudes and understanding of diverse target audi-
ences, greater investment on the part of scientists in public education
and policy dialogue, notable improvements to science education, more
strategic use of the media to reach the public, increased use of the Inter-
net to reach new and expanded audiences, and more strategic ways of
contacting and influencing policymakers and government and corporate
leaders. These recommendations are embedded in the missions of numer-
ous outreach programs, agencies, and nongovernmental organizations.
Many of these recommendations are infrastructural, and they represent
intensive long-term investments. This is commendable, but the approach
may not develop at a rate fast enough for urgent response. For example,
the poor state of science education in the U.S. and certain other coun-
tries (National Science Foundation, 2001) is an enormous problem that
requires major correction. However, educational investments that might
optimistically benefit emerging generations will not have an impact on
people who have already experienced the system (Falk et al., 2007). These
are the adult populations who must engage now to deal with the crisis
at hand. Mechanisms are required to deliver clear messages to very large
and diverse audiences and elicit action over a short timescale.
In this chapter, I offer a few thematic recommendations, some of which
blend with those already proposed, some of which add to them, and some
of which reflect more recent shifts in public attitudes toward environ-
mental topics, such as global warming. With this come suggestions for a
few course corrections. The basic goal, namely to promote broader and
deeper understanding and more committed stewardship of biodiversity,
requires a multidimensional strategy, but one that focuses on three major
objectives: (i) improved understanding of the diverse public audiences we

Engaging the Public in Biodiversity Issuesâ /â 301
are trying to reach, (ii) crafting of the messages suitable for those diverse
audiences, and (iii) enhancements of the mechanisms for delivering those
messages and eliciting engagement.
UNDERSTANDING THE AUDIENCES
Any strategy for engagement starts with the knowledge of who is
being engaged and what they already know and do not know. Accurate
information on the level of understanding of various target audiences is
essential. Unfortunately, substantive research on the public understanding
of biodiversity is still deficient, to a large extent because it has glossed over
the relationship between peopleâs understanding (as opposed to percep-
tion or opinion) and their decisions and actions (Bride, 2006). This is a
serious gap in information, because studies expectedly show that acquired
knowledge of a subject has a heavy influence on subsequent attitudes and
behavior (Kaiser et al., 1999; Bride, 2002; Kaiser and Fuhrer, 2003).
Some Public Misperceptions
That a deficit in knowledge leads to ambivalence or ill-advised conclu-
sions and actions is clearly evident in the case of biodiversity conservation.
An immediate obstacle, one noted from the outset (Biodiversity Project,
1998), is the use of the word biodiversity itself, hardly a word of common
parlance. Surely biodiversity does not have the immediate recognition
of phrases denoting other environmental aspirations, for example, ââpure
waterââ or ââclean air.ââ Even when one moves closer to its real meaning,
the word biodiversity suggests only that there is a great variety of life
forms; it does not lead one to recognize the interconnectedness of these
forms in ecosystems. At the very least, the word requires vigilant and
repeated explanation when communicating with the public, and this is a
disadvantage in an age when metaphors and sound bites carry so much
weight (Lakoff and Johnson, 1980; Lakoff, 2002).
Even if people have grasped the meaning of biodiversity, they are
often unfamiliar with the meaning and significance of biodiversity loss.
There is a persistent widespread misperception, for example, that what we
are witnessing is merely the current wave of extinctions that are part of
the normal turnover in the history of life (American Museum of Natural
History, 1998). In other words, life on the planet has experienced myriad
extinction events over billions of years, and it will continue to thrive, offer-
ing new opportunities for new better-adapted species. (Ironically, those
who accept this pattern of lifeâs constant turmoil often comfort themselves
by exempting humans.) Indeed, the difference between mass extinction vs.
background extinction rates is not one that has been readily absorbed by a

302â /â Michael J. Novacek
large segment of the public (American Museum of Natural History, 1998).
In addition, there is a tendency to place greater value on the more familiar
and charismatic in nature rather than recognizing the integral roles and
importance of all species, even insects, worms, fungi, and microbes, in
various ecosystems (Wilson, 1992; Novacek, 2007).
Both of these misperceptions clearly impede the cultivation of a sense
of concern and stewardship for the planetâs eroding biodiversity. The
notion that current rates of extinction are âânormalââ obviously prevents a
focus on the urgency of the problem. Indeed, this perspective has fed an
attitude, often expressed in the political arena, that action is unwarranted
for something that, according to scientists, is no problem at all. A lack of
appreciation for the richness and interconnectedness of diverse species,
from elephants to soil bacteria, yields a distorted picture of what is really
at risk. With such a narrow vision, even conservation efforts may place
too much attention on a few endangered species rather than the ravaged
habitats within which they live.
Evidence of Positive Public Response
However, there is also evidence the public is prepared and motivated
to understand the biodiversity crisis more accurately and profoundly.
Since the mid-1990s, several surveys have monitored public attitudes on
biodiversity loss and biodiversity conservation. Prominent among these
were the polls of Americans in 1996 and 2002 conducted by the Biodiver-
sity Project (1996, 2002). Respondents in both polling years showed a high
level of concern for the loss of species and degradation of environments.
When they were given a definition for biodiversity, 47% of the respondents
in 2002 (Biodiversity Project, 2002) and 41% in 1996 (Biodiversity Project,
1996) stated that stemming the loss of species was very important to them
personally. In the 2002 poll, 69% stated they had a personal, and 65% said
they had a moral, responsibility to protect all plant and animal life. Also,
half (in 1996) or slightly more (in 2002) of the respondents strongly sup-
ported the Federal Endangered Species Act.
Another important aspect of public attitudes toward biodiversity
is the high level of influence of aesthetic, ethical, patriotic, familial, and
religious values in motivating a sense of responsibility for stewardship. In
the 2002 Biodiversity Project poll, 64% regarded a wide variety of animals
and plants as one of the most important things in their lives, and 71% felt
that nature provided them with inspiration and a peace of mind. Respect
for Godâs work, respect for nature for its own sake, the need to provide
for future generations, the appreciation of the beauty of nature, the need
to maintain a balanced healthy life, and the expectation as an Ameri-
can citizen to protect natural resources all were regarded as ââextremely

Engaging the Public in Biodiversity Issuesâ /â 303
importantââ reasons for protecting the environment by a large percentage
of respondents. These are important connections, because they pave the
way to educating the public on biodiversity issues in ways to which they
personally respond.
Shifts in Public Attitude: The Example of Global Warming
As noted, public awareness of the biodiversity crisis has risen slightly
since the mid-1990s. However, this trend is now overshadowed by a
greatly increased interest in global warming and climate change. The shift
in public attention to this issue in the last few years is remarkable. In earlier
polls (Biodiversity Project, 1996, 2002), people who ââidentified extremely
serious [environmental] problemsââ ranked global climate change below
virtually every other category, including land development, loss of rain
forests, and damage to the oceans. More recent surveys, including nota-
bly the recently published Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT)
poll (Curry et al., 2007), show a radical reversal in public interest. Global
warming now clearly occupies the top of the list of serious environmental
problems faced by the U.S. by a wide margin, as judged by nearly 50% of
respondents in 2006 as opposed to only 20% recorded by an MIT poll in
2003 (Curry, 2004). By contrast, primary concern over other environmental
problems since 2003 either was virtually unchanged (destruction of eco-
systems and overpopulation) or had markedly declined (water pollution,
toxic wastes). It is noteworthy that endangered species ranked very low
as a primary concern â5%) in the MIT polls for both 2003 and 2006. What
accounts for this dramatic shift in public interest toward global warm-
ing? Answers could be potentially instructive in efforts to deliver a more
multidimensional and realistic message, one where biodiversity loss still
looms important in the public arena. Climate change, like biodiversity loss,
has its scientifically complex and more subtle facets. Yet climate-change
scientists have consistently related their conclusions to easily understood
events, rising temperatures, storms, droughts, sea level rise, and other
phenomena that people already accept as important and consequential.
It ââonlyââ remained for scientists to demonstrate to people that the climate
change necessary to increase these events and intensify their consequences
was already happening. The scientific community worked doggedly to
this end, translating and explaining the accumulating scientific discover-
ies in ways that effectively reached the public and the media (Intergov-
ernmental Panel on Climate Change, 2007). The breakthrough that came
with powerful messages by notable leaders like Al Gore (2006) built on
this long-term cultivation of the scientific side of the story.
Such attention, of course, is warranted; global warming is an extremely
serious and far-reaching environmental problem. Yet the swamp-out effect

304â /â Michael J. Novacek
that the current focus on global warming is having on other environmental
topics once again illustrates the problem of changes in public opinion that
are not adequately informed. There is now a tendency in public dialogue
to decouple various environmental problems and ignore their synergistic
effects. Thus, people may find it hard to recognize that it is the ââdouble
whammyââ of climate change in combination with fragmented degraded
natural habitats, and not climate change alone, that is the real threat to
many species and ecosystems, including human populations marginal-
ized and displaced by those combined forces (Lovejoy and Hannah, 2005;
Malhi et al., 2008). The destructive impacts of other forces in addition to
climate change must be brought back into the dialogue, because some of
their deleterious impacts are already apparent, or will be so, on a time-
scale much shorter than the one we are calibrating for the effects of global
warming (Myers and Knoll, 2001).
Public Priorities: Where Does Biodiversity Rank?
It would be unfortunate to dwell at length on the unbalanced public
perception of various environmental issues without recognizing perhaps
the most fundamental obstacle in communicating the urgency of these
problems. We humans, of course, are confronted with many problems,
environmental or otherwise, and without some sense of priorities, we
would be totally overwhelmed by them. Recent surveys (Curry et al.,
2007) show that in the U.S., environmental issues, even with the added
concern over global warming, still rank below terrorism, the Iraq war,
health care, the economy, education, the quality of government leaders,
Social Security, illegal immigrants, and family values. One may have scien-
tific, political, and social views that lead them to disagree with the higher
rankings of some of these topics, but it would be absurd to claim that ter-
rorism and health care do not warrant our serious attention. Nonetheless,
environmental issues should elicit greater concern, simply because they
are so integral to many of the high-ranking problems on the public radar
screen. Biodiversity provides enormous actual and potential benefits in
the form of food, pharmaceuticals, and other resources and commodities.
The degradation of habitats and biodiversity has huge implications for
human health, economics, political instability, and even conflict. As dis-
cussed below, the key approach lies in better communicating an essential
message: biodiversity is not really in direct competition with many issues
that people regard as critical to their health, wealth, welfare, and sense of
responsibility to family and future generations.

Engaging the Public in Biodiversity Issuesâ /â 305
Assessing Diverse Audiences and Attitudes
Many of the above-noted surveys are useful in detecting some general
signals of response from the public. However, these surveys also show
diverse responses that relate to particular levels of education, economic
background, cultural affiliations, and religious beliefs. Environmental
educators argue that the true complexity of the audience has not been
sufficiently sampled and analyzed (Bride, 2006). For example, we are
just beginning to survey people in developing countries faced with dif-
ficult choices because of their very poor standard of living (Agrawal
and Redford, 2006). Here, we can take a lesson from business marketing
strategies, wherein target audiences are identified and parsed for differ-
ent approaches. This underscores the need for more surveys that identify
groups according to their onset knowledge, economic status, cultural iden-
tities, and motivations (Falk et al., 2007). Of course, this targeted sampling
should be accompanied by the kind of general assessments that identify
some of the overarching concerns shared by many different audiences.
CRAFTING THE MESSAGE
A consistent result in surveys of public attitudes is that the basic mes-
sage, that the biodiversity enormously important to the sustainability of
the environment and the quality of our own lives is at serious risk, is not
getting across to many of the target audiences. Moreover, the message
carries some unfamiliar terminology, as noted above in the case of the
word biodiversity itself, that requires constant attention and clarification.
When people are given a definition of the word, they respond in ways
compatible with efforts to protect biodiversity, expressing concerns over
the destruction of habitats and the loss of species.
This leads directly to a consideration of those messages that have been
more effective than others in reaching the public. Such an assessment is
difficult; surveys, for the most part, have been aimed at eliciting the very
general responses noted above. The limited insights gained from those
responses, however, suggest that the most penetrating messages are those
that clearly relate scientific insights concerning biodiversity and biodiver-
sity loss to more general environmental problems and, in turn, to problems
rooted in common experience: poor water quality, depletion of fisheries,
zebra mussels and other invasive species, forest clearing, open-pit mining,
urban sprawl, and many others. For example, the concept of shifting base-
lines in fisheries (Pauly, 1995) describes a tendency to assume that ocean
life is abundant and ocean ecosystems are healthy, even though they have
experienced steady, albeit slow, deterioration. Thus, putative âârecoveryââ
in the populations of some species by no means indicates the species has

306â /â Michael J. Novacek
been fully restored to earlier historic levels. The concept has resonance,
because not only is it scientifically instructive, but also it directly relates to
the availability of a food resource vitally important to humans. Likewise,
arguments that relate biodiversity to land use (Foley et al., 2005) not only
illuminate basic scientific principles concerning the necessary interaction
of species in providing habitats rich in resources, they also provide useful
options for agriculture that achieve a balance between providing produc-
tive cropland and sustaining biodiversity. Biodiversity science, collecting,
surveying, identifying, classifying, mapping, and analyzing species, of
course provides the important database for all these arguments (Wilson,
1992), but the public recognition of the importance of this work is elusive
without themes that address more familiar issues.
Such themes then offer a chance to respond to the frequent question
raised by people: Why should we care? The framework for the answer
to this question was established some time ago by Ehrlich and Wilson
(1991), namely, (i) we have, as Earthâs dominant species, an ethical and
moral responsibility to protect diverse life; (ii) biodiversity has conferred
enormous economic benefits to humans in the form of foods, medicines,
and industrial products; and (iii) species are the working parts of natural
ecosystems that provide the essential services necessary to sustain life. We
can use this framework to develop examples of messages that might more
effectively intersect with current public attitudes.
The Ethical, Moral, and Aesthetic Argument
Because biodiversity is also synonymous with nature enriched, it
appeals to what might be characterized as more noble human qualities;
ethical and moral responsibilities; altruistic concern for our future genera-
tions and companion creatures; and aesthetic responses to the wonder,
beauty, and tranquility of nature. As noted above, surveys show these
motivations are strongly influential in raising public appreciation for
biodiversity and concern for its erosion. Developing messages that draw
on these instincts, what E. O. Wilson (1984) originally coined as ââbio-
philia,ââ the human need and love for nature, can only be advantageous.
In museum exhibitions dealing with biodiversity, for example, the first
step is often to place people in a stunning environment, one that reminds
them of the beauty and wonder of nature, as a way of telling them what
is at risk. A multipoint proclamation for a biodiversity agenda is not a
way to greet visitors. A diorama of a rain forest or a wall displaying the
extraordinary diversity of life forms is a more effective gateway. Some of
the most effective television and film programs, such as the Discovery
Channel 2007 series Planet Earth (Weprin, 2007), that speak to biodiversity
themes use a similar approach in reinforcing the biophilia of viewers.

Engaging the Public in Biodiversity Issuesâ /â 307
Many moral and aesthetic values that connect people with nature
are inspired by people who, by relating their personal experiences,
make a compelling case for stewardship. Humans are interested in other
humans, not only what they do but also what passion drives them to do
it (Fleischner, 1990). The roots of environmentalism are found in places
like Walden Pond, where emotion, art, and experience play a critical role
in defining the value of nature. Not everyone can write like Thoreau, but
when a biologist effectively relates his or her personal and emotional, and
intellectual, experiences in the field and the laboratory, people respond.
The Economic Argument
As Ehrlich and Wilson (1991) stated, biodiversity has unquestionable
economic value in terms of foods, medicines, and other benefits. None-
theless, elaboration of this point must be carefully crafted. The economic
argument may encounter objections from people who fail to understand
why it is more important to preserve habitats than to log, farm, or develop
them for more immediate and competitive economic needs. Conflicts in
economic perspectives are also now apparent even in different groups
who identify themselves as environmentalists. Some favor accelerated
economic growth as a way of producing the wealth, education, and
technological breakthroughs necessary to solve the big environmental
problems (Shellenberger and Nordhaus, 2007). However, there are those
who advocate a massive return to local ââgreenââ economies, that depend
critically on both individual and cooperative behaviors for moderation
and the reduction of consumerism (McKibben, 2007). Connections must
be made between the stewardship of biodiversity and different models
for putatively compatible economies. We also need to understand much
better the complex economic, traditional, cultural, and environmental
interrelationships of low-income people in developing countries, many of
whom live in the most biologically diverse regions (Agrawal and Redford,
2006). An effective argument here is that biodiversity emphatically plays
a role in strategies for more sustainable agriculture, one that calls for the
development of croplands that mix agriculture with natural components
and thus provide both crop foods and restored ecosystem services (Foley
et al., 2005).
Another way of demonstrating the economic importance of biodi-
versity is to use examples of negative impacts of biodiversity loss. Such
losses can destabilize relationships of communities, even countries. A
perfect ecological, economic, and political storm is brewing in West Africa
because of the complex interplay of overfishing by both African and Euro-
pean nations offshore, the accelerating devastation of wildlife on land for
bushmeat, and periods of massive food shortages (Brashares et al., 2004).

308â /â Michael J. Novacek
Human population densities in Africa are higher where biodiversity is
higher, suggesting that biodiversity is itself a better index for compara-
tive wealth than we once had realized (Balmford et al., 2001). Biodiversity
enrichment, in its transformed mode, means arable land, a great entice-
ment for needy and opportunistic nations. Such pressures lead to conflict.
Many important areas rich in biodiversity lie on international borders,
especially tropical rain forests between nations that have not always main-
tained the most peaceful relations. History shows that people have made
war over gold, oil, and water; they may do so over biodiversity.
The Ecological Argument
That species are the fabric of ecosystems, which in turn provide essen-
tial services, is a powerful concept, but one that may escape many of those
unfamiliar with biological principles. Again, in many instances, it is best
to enter these discussions from a practical and experiential starting point,
often with a focus on current news. For example, animal pollination of
plants is not only central to the function of terrestrial ecosystems, but it
is also essential to the survival, sustainability, and economies of human
populations (McGregor, 1976; Southwick and Southwick, 1992). The dis-
tressing recent decline in the health and number of managed bee colonies
in the U.S. (Allen-Wardell et al., 1998; Oldroyd, 2007) can be mitigated by
greater reliance on wild populations of pollinators, so long as we main-
tain the natural habitats adjacent to agricultural areas that are necessary
to support these wild species (Kremen et al., 2002; Ricketts et al., 2004).
Thus, an effective public message is one demonstrating that putting more
biodiversity into service can improve crop yield and save more than a little
biodiversity-enriched land in the process.
This argument relates to one that inculcates a more general apprecia-
tion for the preservation of the natural world: pollination of plants by
diverse species is not only important in food production of humans but
is also critical to the sustainability of many terrestrial ecosystems. In other
words, the world that is so familiar to us is strongly shaped by an extraor-
dinary collaboration between flowering plants and pollinating insects (as
well as some mammals and birds), a proof of concept with a 100 million-
year-old history (Novacek, 2007). Huge losses of species that participate in
this system have the potential to disrupt ecosystems in ways documented
for plants and insects at the time of the end-Cretaceous extinction event
(Wilf et al., 2006). That history records such disruptions is a lesson of the
past that people respond to; it induces them to think about what life might
be like in a similarly degraded world of the future.

Engaging the Public in Biodiversity Issuesâ /â 309
Relating Biodiversity to Other Environmental Issues
Explanations of the importance of biodiversity should also be contex-
tual. How we deal with the synergy of destructive environmental forces
will define our future. Importantly, the combined effects of climate change,
fragmented and degraded habitats, and threats to biodiversity need a
more compelling presentation to reach many audiences preoccupied
with global warming as the one big environmental problem. Disturbing
examples of synergistically driven devastation are all too common. The
traumatic effects of both predicted climate change and the fragmentation
of natural habitats may force near-term extinction of many species in the
extraordinarily beautiful Fynbos flora of South Africa (Midgley and Miller,
2005). Overharvesting, pollution, ocean warming, and coral bleaching
have irreparably damaged many of the worldâs coral reefs (Pandolfi et al.,
2005). Large-scale eutrophication in many coastal regions of the world has
resulted in hazmat environments deadly to marine fish and plants and
harmful to humans (Sellner et al., 2003). In terms of solutions that address
global warming, biodiversity-enriched forests are important in reducing
our carbon footprint (Lovejoy and Hannah, 2005) or in mitigating the
effects of urban heat islands (Foley et al., 2005). Educational programming,
media, exhibitions, and other means of public outreach should build on
the welcome increase in public interest in global warming by demonstrat-
ing the synergistic effects of other environmental disruptions.
DELIVERING THE MESSAGE AND ELICITING ENGAGEMENT
The next step in the process of engaging the public, the delivery of
the message, is perhaps the most challenging to the scientific community.
This endeavor relies on such activities as market testing and targeting;
media networking; exhibitry; filmmaking; legal, policy, and economic
consulting; and organizational and collaborative programming that gen-
erally lie outside the expertise and experience of scientists most familiar
with the problem. At an early stage in the biodiversity conservation effort,
this challenge was recognized. Strategies were developed for convening,
collaboration, and communication among professional groups, NGOs,
media, and others. Subsequently, many NGOs (including those staffed
with biodiversity experts) have been active. A comprehensive examina-
tion of these mechanisms and strategies for delivering the message lie
beyond the scope of this chapter. Here, I focus on some practical issues that
involve a few key elements in the process: the media, venues for public
science education, and public participation, sometimes also referred to as
ââcitizen science.ââ

310â /â Michael J. Novacek
The Media as Audience and Partner
Effective linkages between the scientific and conservation community
and the public must be made through the main channel of dissemination,
namely media in the form of news and educational programming. Most
adults learn about science through television, with print media running a
distant second (National Science Board, 2004). Some biodiversity conser-
vation strategies recommend that media be ââusedââ to influence sectors of
the public (Biodiversity Project, 1998). Initially, however, the news media
should be recognized as another segment of the public audience, not as
a partner. Journalists do not think of themselves as collaborators. Rather,
they are tasked to observe and relate, although the expectation for even-
handed treatment does not eradicate a slant in a story that arises from a
particular point of view (Cunningham, 2003). Thus, media can be ambiva-
lent, even antagonistic, to the idea that a particular scientific result and
its implications are credible and important. News outlets are sensitive to
popular tastes and, as such, rank the importance of many topics far higher
than the loss of biodiversity (Biodiversity Project, 1998). Also, in many
cases, media either tend to oversimplify scientific results and conclusions
or overstate the lack of resolution on an issue, even when there is only a
modicum of uncertainty to a result (Friedman et al., 1999). One outcome
is that news outlets can discourage public interest in environmental topics
by characterizing the science behind them as overly complex, immersed
in debate and controversy, and detached from human interests. Another
reality of news coverage that frustrates an effort to cultivate public interest
in an issue such as biodiversity loss is that stories die easily. The discovery
of a hirsute deep-sea crab (Dean, 2006) or a new species of centipede in
Central Park (Stewart, 2002) may make front-page and network prime-
time news, but the resonance of the story is quickly lost.
Yet the capacity of the news media to respond to environmental issues
and transmit them to a very broad and diverse public has been resound-
ingly demonstrated. Again, the example of the global-warming issue
is relevant here, because it has somehow caught the current of a media
deluge (Bowman, 2007) that has clearly had an impact on the public and
ultimately on at least some of the legislators they vote for (Kintisch, 2006).
Contributing factors here are doubtless persuasive and influential com-
municators like former Vice President and Nobel Laureate Al Gore (2006),
new and cumulative scientific discoveries, and the continued reinforce-
ment (sometimes fallaciously) with human experience, where every sign
from natureâhurricanes, drought, melting ice, or disease outbreaksâis
associated with global warming. Finally, practical and pressing issues,
such as the rising price of oil and the need for energy options in everyday
life, have been linked to the agenda for mitigating the effects of climate
change (McKibben, 2007). Media (and public) attention to global warming

Engaging the Public in Biodiversity Issuesâ /â 311
is instructive and underlies some of points already made about connecting
biodiversity issues with practical public concerns and needs.
At the same time, it is instructive to consider some of the downside
to the media obsession with the global-warming issue. One, as noted
above, is the obfuscation of the multidimensional environmental crisis,
of which global warming is part but not all of the problem (Lovejoy and
Hannah, 2005). Second, many news reports and media stories have both
oversimplified and oversensationalized the global-warming scenario, a
serious liability in light of the decreasing level of trust the public has in
the media (Bowman, 2007). Finally, it is unclear to what extent the media
is helping to explain options for action and the choices we may face to
deal with global warming.
An important strategy for raising the newsworthiness of the biodiver-
sity issue and helping to ensure its accurate portrayal is ultimately educa-
tional. This means providing opportunities for journalists and reporters
to encounter more translated versions of scientific stories or to convene
as groups or individuals with scientists over an extended period. Jour-
nalists often express a need to get a bigger picture, but this is impractical
with a pressing deadline for a story on a new scientific discovery. News
and views items in widely circulated scientific journals like Nature or
Science are important links to other news agencies. At the next level,
special sections like the New York Times ââTuesday Science Sectionââ allow
for the development of themes over several weeks or months. Scientific
institutions devoted to public education can be effective cultivators and
conveners in this way.
Educational programming can be powerfully transmitted by media,
as indicated by the large audiences that view nature programs and other
science series on television. Over the past 10 years, the number of pro-
grams on network and cable devoted to science has proliferated, but this
is not necessarily accompanied by an increase in the average quality and
effectiveness of these offerings (Dingwall and Aldridge, 2006). Some pro-
gramming, notably certain nature shows, in its superficiality may fail to
challenge nonscientific notions like Creationism and Intelligent Design
and may even implicitly endorse them (Dingwall and Aldridge, 2006).
However, selected programs, such as the 2007 Discovery Channel series
Planet Earth, whose premier attracted >2 million viewers (Weprin, 2007),
project both the beauty of nature and an artful message that encourages
stewardship of nature, one fully compatible with the agenda for biodiver-
sity conservation. Such programs need to be emulated for their high qual-
ity, and they should stimulate further collaborations between scientists
and skilled producers and filmmakers.
The obvious shift in media and communications since the inception
of the biodiversity agenda involves the use of the Internet. Indeed, the

312â /â Michael J. Novacek
Internet is redistributing news audiences in radical ways that are seri-
ously threatening some traditional news organizations, particularly local
newspapers (Patterson, 2007). Many web sites, including those offered by
university programs, public science institutions, and conservation NGOs,
provide effective status reports on species and habitats at risk and steps
taken toward remediation. Web-based initiatives that network scientific
research results and, at the same time, provide broad access, such as the
Encyclopedia of Life (www.eol.org) (Wilson, 2003), could potentially engage
very large new audiences outside the scientific community and allow
them to contemplate the staggering richness, beauty, and importance of
biodiversity.
Venues for Public Science
Even in countries where science literacy is much higher than in the
U.S., there are limited opportunities for the lay public to stay abreast of
the rapid rate of scientific discovery (Falk et al., 2007). Aside from popular
science books, periodicals, films, television specials, and web offerings,
the responsibility for providing lifelong exposure to science falls to muse-
ums, botanical gardens, zoos, aquaria, science centers, and similar venues
devoted to the public education of science. These institutions are thus
critically important in educating people on biodiversity issues and other
environmental problems. That such institutions can offer an encounter
with nature that is both vivid and authentic defines their cultural impact
(Novacek, 2001b). Many people, especially in urban areas, will rarely, if
ever, see a relatively unspoiled tract of woodland in their region, let alone a
tropical rain forest. For these individuals, an encounter with nature means
a visit to a museum or the like. The enthusiastic response of visitors to
this opportunity can be appreciated in terms of the huge audiences such
institutions attract. Over 865 million people visited museums (including
gardens, zoos, nature centers, science centers, and others) in 1999 in the
U.S. alone (Lake Snell Perry and Associates, 2001).
One important strength of such institutions as venues for commu-
nicating science is the feeling of trust they invoke in the public. Surveys
show that natural history and science museums have extremely high
credibility ratings (Lake Snell Perry and Associates, 2001). However, there
is also evidence that such institutions have not fully capitalized on their
reputation. Exhibits and educational programs that not only dazzle but
also address issues of substance, including the biodiversity crisis, have
been slow in coming. Many permanent museum exhibits with environ-
mental topics have not been revised since they first opened decades ago or
are not complemented by new halls that address current themes (Novacek,
2001b). Aggravating this problem is the uneven commitment to scholarly

Engaging the Public in Biodiversity Issuesâ /â 313
activity in many such institutions (Novacek, 1991). A shift away from
fundamental research in some institutions prevents them from taking on
topics dealing with leading-edge science or major issues, topics where
expertise is critical and in-house expertise particularly advantageous. Top-
flight scientific research in an institution devoted to public education is not
an oxymoron, especially where those researchers are strongly motivated
and skilled communicators.
In more recent years, there are notable signs of improvement on
this front. Exhibits dealing with current environmental issues, including
biodiversity, have proliferated. The California Academy of Sciences will
reopen in 2008 in an entirely new structure devoted to both exhibition and
research and collections, one of the largest high-grade green buildings
in the U.S. (Barinaga, 2004). New partnerships among institutions have
allowed the sponsorship and nuanced development of timely exhibits on
such themes as endangered species, climate change, evolution, and water
that offer clear and consistent messages as they travel to various destina-
tions and new audiences both in the U.S. and abroad. This momentum is
encouraging, but at the same time, many of these public institutions are
facing severe financial pressures (Dalton, 2007) and other forces that may
move them to dilute both their scholarly and educational programs. Their
support is paramount if we expect to elicit improved public understanding
of important issues like biodiversity loss.
Public Participation: Citizen Science
A relatively new effort aimed at eliciting public engagement, dubbed
citizen science, involves publicâprofessional partnerships that allow peo-
ple of all ages an opportunity to participate in real scientific research
and to interact with scientists in the process (Cohen, 1997; Brossard et al.,
2005). Although the formulation of the idea has some novel aspects, it is
rooted in the activities of amateur naturalists dating back in European
culture to the 1700s (Sparks and Carey, 1995). The hope is that this kind
of proactive participation not only will contribute new data on species
and habitats but also will increase the participantsâ understanding of the
process and results of the relevant science (Tuss, 1996; Brossard et al., 2005).
Such enlightenment, it is further hoped, will strengthen participantsâ con-
nections with both science and the environment in ways that cultivate a
sense of stewardship.
The citizen science approach seems well founded, but there are a
few impediments. First, developing programs that foster citizen science
requires intensive investment of time and energy on the part of the profes-
sional community, entailing often greater commitment than lectures, edi-
torials, popular writing, and other efforts to communicate with the public.

314â /â Michael J. Novacek
As a result, the number of people that actually have the opportunity to
become citizen scientists is limited. The problem seems surmountable as
more efficient programs linking scientists with science educators are being
developed (Johnson and McPhearson, 2006). A second problem resides
in the poor understanding of the impacts of citizen science programs to
date (Brossard et al., 2005). Some of the few studies available show that,
although participants improved their knowledge and familiarity with a
particular scientific topic, they did not achieve a better understanding of
the scientific process or change their attitudes toward science and envi-
ronmental issues (Brossard et al., 2005).
However, there are now many examples of citizen science programs
in the biodiversity area that seem to have beneficial outcomes. The Bioblitz
biodiversity surveys (Roach, 2003) carried out in New Yorkâs Central Park,
Washington, DC, and many other sites yielded new scientific results that
not only further enthused participants and galvanized their activities but
also attracted media interest. It seems that programs in citizen science have
much potential if they allow more people to participate, their impacts are
more thoroughly analyzed, and participants are better familiarized with
the environmental issues that relate to their contribution (Brossard et al.,
2005).
CONCLUSIONS
A very large and diverse public demonstrates a connection with
nature and a sense of concern about environmental problems (Biodiver-
sity Project, 2002). However, these attitudes often are not accompanied by
real understanding of biodiversity or a sense of how to take more effec-
tive measures in protecting and sustaining natural habitats and species.
Moreover, the public places much greater priority on other problems,
such as terrorism, health, and the economy, than on biodiversity loss.
People also often do not recognize the implications of biodiversity loss in
exacerbating many problems more familiar and more important to them.
Nonetheless, the capacity of the public (and the media) to respond in a
more massive and emphatic way to some environmental issues, such as
global warming (Bowman, 2007), points the way for greater connections
with the public on biodiversity issues. Given the recent transformation
of public response, it is more important than ever to show that environ-
mental degradation represents a multidimensional problem in which
biodiversity loss and other factors, in addition to climate change, have
serious impacts. We are thus still challenged with the goal defined for the
biodiversity agenda nearly 20 years ago. We must provide the enhanced
understanding of biodiversity and its degradation in a way that empow-
ers people to make choices and take action based on sound science and

Engaging the Public in Biodiversity Issuesâ /â 315
reliable recommendations. In the meantime, many avenues for attaining
this goalâcommunications through media, environmental NGOs, con-
tributions of public science institutions, and the development of citizen
science programsâhave been established. Investments in these actions
must be strengthened and their strategies revisited and refined. Most
importantly, the critical roles of species in providing ecosystem services,
natural beauty and pleasure, and sustaining human lives bear a message
that requires constant attention, recrafting, and improved deliverance to
impact diverse public audiences.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
I thank symposium organizers J. C. Avise and F. J. Ayala for the invita-
tion to contribute. E. J. Sterling, T. E. Lovejoy, G. Amato, M. A. OâLeary,
L. J. Guggenheim, E. V. Futter, J. Cracraft, E. O. Wilson, and P. H. Raven
shared insights and comments that influenced the development of this
chapter. I thank J. C. Avise, J. B. C. Jackson, and an anonymous reviewer
for constructive criticisms and comments.
NOTE: A 2008 Gallup Poll shows that more Americans than ever recognize that the effects
of global warming may have already begun but are not as concerned about this as they are
other problems, including the pollution of drinking water (Newport, 2008).

The current extinction crisis is of human making, and any favorable resolution of that biodiversity crisis--among the most dire in the 4-billion-year history of Earth--will have to be initiated by mankind. Little time remains for the public, corporations, and governments to awaken to the magnitude of what is at stake. This book aims to assist that critical educational mission, synthesizing recent scientific information and ideas about threats to biodiversity in the past, present, and projected future.

This is the second volume from the In the Light of Evolution series, based on a series of Arthur M. Sackler colloquia, and designed to promote the evolutionary sciences. Each installment explores evolutionary perspectives on a particular biological topic that is scientifically intriguing but also has special relevance to contemporary societal issues or challenges. Individually and collectively, the ILE series aims to interpret phenomena in various areas of biology through the lens of evolution, address some of the most intellectually engaging as well as pragmatically important societal issues of our times, and foster a greater appreciation of evolutionary biology as a consolidating foundation for the life sciences.

Welcome to OpenBook!

You're looking at OpenBook, NAP.edu's online reading room since 1999. Based on feedback from you, our users, we've made some improvements that make it easier than ever to read thousands of publications on our website.